Los Angeles and Racial Leadership

I keep seeing posts related to the “Democrat” leadership of Los Angeles and California. The complaints are predictable. Effectively, they run something like “DemonRats destroyed California” and “Democrats value fish over people,” etc., etc.

Such a worldview is misguided, at best. Yes, leftist politics are at the root of almost every bad decision. But “why” do leftwing political positions take root and destroy in some areas and not others? The answer is simple: race.

If you look at Los Angeles, Detroit, and Atlanta, the common thread is black leadership. White leftists control almost entirely White Vermont, and yet, Vermont is fairly well functioning. It is not as well functioning as New Hampshire (which is in a current battle with tax refugees from Massachusetts), but Vermont has almost no crime, efficient bureaucratic systems, and is pristine clean. By contrast, black run hellholes are a manifestation of racial priorities that are antithetical to White priorities.

The leftwing policies may have been crafted by smarter Jewish puppet masters, but at the end of the day, a people have to choose those policies. In White states, leftwing policies that are destructive to White societal norms are generally rejected. Minnesota is a case in point.

Minnesota went through several rounds of political flips. It was a solidly blue labor state in the 1970s with a typical Nordic socialist view grounded in mid-19th century ideals on Marxism. In the late 90s and early 2000s, as leftwing policies began to harm White people, Minnesota began to elect Republicans with whom they shared greater ideological agreement. Minnesota Jewish (former) Senator Al Franken lamented the fact that he had to effectively tear up the couch cushions to find votes in order to win reelection (recounts never go in a Republican’s favor). Franken’s remedy? Make Minnesota less White.

The Senator went on a personal crusade in Washington to ensure as many Somali and Ethiopian refugees would go to Minneapolis so as to permanently change the state’s demographic profile. Minnesota was “too White” to remain leftist. Franken ensured that race would determine the future of political outcomes in Minnesota. Vermont, by contrast, has shown no such political ambiguity, and therefore, remains untouched.

Franken was right. Black people are inherently Marxist because Marxism ensures equality of outcomes not opportunities. If you are unequal, i.e., inferior, you need a government that eliminates meritocratic competition.

Take Africa as yet another example of Marxism taking root. It was understandable that many Africans saw Marxism as the antidote to colonialism. They sought their independence, and the Soviet Union provided them quasi-independence. But that was the 1940s – 60s. It has been almost 60 years and yet, Africans still overwhelmingly embrace Marxism at some governing level throughout the continent. South Africa, once a proudly White controlled state, has slid deeper into Marxist decline since the ascension of black rule. That is a racially foretold reality.

So, why not “The Black Belt” South? The South has the highest concentrations of blacks in the United States. Mississippi is almost 45% black, yet it is conservative. The reason is simple. Southern Whites form a uniform conservative bloc in every Southern state. Southern Whites are highly disciplined. Blacks form leftist blocs in those same states. If you get enough leftwing Whites to join with blacks, the black candidate wins. Consequently, the eternally racially conscience Southern White man knows that he has to remain disciplined in his political approach. One slip to the left leads to devastating Marxist consequences.

States like Tennessee, Texas, and especially Florida are structurally designed to negate the influence of leftwing Whites teaming with blacks to change the political dynamics of their states. Georgia, unfortunately, is not. With the influx of leftwing Yankee transplants, just enough foreign Whites who are unfamiliar with Southern blacks voted into power two Marxist senators. The struggle in the South to hold onto White political power is very real as we battle back both Marxist blacks, naive leftists Whites, and Mestizo Hispanics.

Returning to Los Angeles, there is no hope for California because it is permanently demographically changed. It is not White enough and those few Whites who reside within Los Angeles believe their wealth will protect them from the brown hordes they love. Ultimately, it will not. Ironically, Los Angeles’ Jewish community is learning this quickly, as attacks on Jews by primarily black and Hispanic gang members have increased in the past five years. It does not matter that neither we (my people) nor the Jews consider Jews “White.” The browns see them as White and that is sufficient to target them.

In sum, the issue of Democrat or Republican – while important because it denotes a basic ideological framework – is not nearly as consequential as race when it comes to political determination. One can blame the Jews for Democrat policies, but I would counter that those same Jews wrote Republican neocon war plans and anti-union foreign outsourcing policies. Who chooses “which” political future is definitely determined by skin color… even if you know that one conservative black guy or like Candace Owens.

One comment

  1. Vermont is starting to have migrant issues and Homelessness, recently read an article where residents on Church street with business are afraid to go out at night in Burlington, homelessness/ drug crime on the rise,

    Nice read Sir,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *